You must have sat with some seriously stoned audiences. That scene had me convinced Andy Serkis was going to get an Oscar nomination.
Really? Huh. I wish I could be enthralled in that scene but I guess that context I had means I’ll never know. It just irritates me every time because I think about how all those people thought that this was comic relief.
Actually that probably strengthens my position.
When every demographic disagrees with you, you might be in the minority. How is this not clear?
And count me as an Andy Serkis fan.
LOL I’m aware of that. But when did majority rules = majority right? The LOTR films were huge budget fantasy Hollywood fare based on highly respected source material. Now, how often does something like that come along? And with that in mind, people tend to want to overlook the warts and give it something of a free pass. I certainly did with the first film, which to this day I can tolerate, but as they progressively got worse and worse my tolerance for Jackson’s hackery eroded away. And his subsequent efforts only reaffirm my long-standing disagreement with the Qt3 hivemind.
Probably not as many as you think, but those of us that do don’t bother posting because there’s little point in arguing with fan boys.
I have to agree with a comment Jack Nicholson made to Elijah Wood about Return of the King…Too many endings.
Or those of us with very cogent and well-reasoned positive opinions on the exceptional movie adaptations of books I have always found borderline unreadable but appealing in concept. Not everyone who likes something is accurately dismissed as a “fanboy,” although I certainly admit the LotR films have their share on this (and probably every nerd-related) forum.
I have to agree with a comment Jack Nicholson made to Elijah Wood about Return of the King…Too many endings.
That’s what Jackson gets for sticking so close to the source material in that section of the film.
“Hollywood” fare? No, sorry, try again. Those films were made with almost no input from Hollywood. They were Jackson’s films, beginning to end, for better or worse.
Now, how often does something like that come along? And with that in mind, people tend to want to overlook the warts and give it something of a free pass.
This is not why people love the LotR films, and you’re a fool if you believe otherwise.
I certainly did with the first film, which to this day I can tolerate, but as they progressively got worse and worse my tolerance for Jackson’s hackery eroded away. And his subsequent efforts only reaffirm my long-standing disagreement with the Qt3 hivemind.
Jackson is not a hack. Do yourself a favor and stop describing him as such. It makes you look ridiculous. You dislike Jackson’s films. That’s all. I dislike all of Jackson’s non-LotR work I’ve seen, so it’s not like I’m trying to dissuade you from thinking Jackson isn’t the greatest living director or anything.
The audience you saw it with fucking sucked. I saw that film four times in the theater, and every single time the audience chuckled a bit in the appropriate places but went dead silent when Smeagol said, “I hate you!” to himself. In one screening a woman a few rows behind me let out a pained “Oh no!” when he said that. As soon as that scene gets “real” for Smeagol, it was like the air was sucked out of the theater. It’s a very effective scene, played exceptionally well by Serkis, and I am very sorry the audience you saw it with were assholes who ruined it for you. I honestly have never encountered anyone who thought that scene was supposed to be funny.
The scene you’re describing is one that’s a little bit later in the film, when he’s captured by Faramir and such. The one I’m talking about is earlier when he’s going back and forth on either side of a pillar behind Frodo, playing like “nice smeagol” and “bad smeagol” or something. That’s where that “You don’t have any friends…” line is from.
No, we’re talking about the same scene. The “I hate you” line is around 1:09.
Best part of fellowship was seeing some people crying at the exit of the theater after Boromir’s death, and that’s why i prefer the first movie.
The first movie was the best because it had the least amount of changes from the book i.g. Jackson’s changes/additions
Never mind that, Gandalf’s death had me teary even though I knew he was coming back. What a great character he was, you always felt everything was going to be okay when he was around.
Gotta give props for Moria, he changed stuff but it all worked beautifully… except he changed the Moria story into something that didn’t make a lot of sense to me. I need to read the book and rewatch the film so I can properly articulate why this doesn’t work for me, but I do remember it stood out like a sore thumb at the time.
He… did? the only change was the (admittedly video gamey) toppling tower bit.
Well, that goes far in explaining your fanboy-ish defense of these wretched movies. Unreadable, eh? Hopefully The Belgariad wasn’t too tough a read either.
“Hollywood” fare? No, sorry, try again. Those films were made with almost no input from Hollywood. They were Jackson’s films, beginning to end, for better or worse.
So a Hollywood studio gave $300+ million to a director who’s then-track record consisted of low-budget, low-quality films with no involvement at all, eh? That’s not very plausible. And those movies reek of low-brow Hollywood decision making.
This is not why people love the LotR films, and you’re a fool if you believe otherwise.
A fool you say!!! Oh my.
Jackson is not a hack. Do yourself a favor and stop describing him as such. It makes you look ridiculous.
About as foolish as this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Vyhve9gtg The freshman film student hack quality starts a little before the 2:30 mark. Enjoy the artistic vision from the great director who sheperded this project alone on his shoulders from start to finish. And please don’t pull out the canard that this scene is an anomaly. . .the three movies are chock-full of such dreck.
I saw that film four times in the theater,
Wow, only four times, eh? Why not spread the love around to those other fantasy films that were competing at the time? Or the decade before, or the decade after?
A friend of mine said his problem with the Moria section was tactical: “Don’t they know not to put the magic user at the front of the party?”
Other than the collapsing stairs, I thought Moria was one of the most effective translations from the source material into film–Jackson captured the spirit and feeling of the original version while making it work as entertainment.
My problem with Moria was about who knew what before they got there and their initials reactions when they get inside.
How would you have preferred a scene where wizards fight with magic have gone? Something like this?
None of the words you use to describe that scene make sense to me. I couldn’t disagree more.
Would describing it as a geriatric WWE match with staves work better for ya? Love the approach that since it’s better in your eyes than the D&D movie then it must be passable though. I shall henceforth use Toxic Avenger as the yardstick by which to judge all future movies (no offense to Toxie intended).
I hate how on internet forums you have to qualify every statement, or you offend someone. obviously not everyone posting here is a fanboy
Other than cutting the scouring of the shire, and having the longest slow mo reunion scene ever, you’d be right. Without the scouring having the movie stretch on forever after the destruction of the ring is really pointless. It’d probably still have to many endings, but at least there’d be a point.
If any movie should have won best picture/director it should have been Fellowship. As others have mentioned, the cuts from it made sense, and the changes were ultimately pretty slight. If nothing else, that version of Boromir had so much more depth and personality than the one ini the book.
John Reynolds: The alexlitel of Peter Jackson films.